A 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



016 085 220 3 



V 



P 685 
.062 
Copy 1 



SPEECH 



X 



OF 



V 



JAMES DIXON, OF CONNECTICUT. 




Delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 9, 1858. 



The Senate, February 9, 185S, had under con- 
sideration the motion of Mr. Douglas, to take up 
the following resolutions offered by him, viz : 

" Resolved, Tliat the President be requested to fur- 
nish all the iuforniation within his possession or con- 
trol on tlie followiuf^lioiuts: 

"1. The returns and votes for and against a con- 
rention at an election held in the Territory of Kansas 
in October, 185G. 

" The census and registration of votes in the Ter- 
ritory of Kansas, under the provisions of the act of 
said Legislature, passed in February, 1S57, providing 
for the election of delegates and assembling a con- 
vention to frame a constitution. 

"3. The returns of an election held in said Terri- 
tory, on the 21st of December, 1857, under the sched- 
ule of the Lecompton Constitution, upon the question 
of 'constitution with slavery' or 'constitution with- 
out slavery.' 

" 4. The returns of an election held in the Territory 
of Kansas, on the 4th day of January, 185'^, under 
the authority of a law passed by the Legislature of 
said Territory, submitting the constitution formed by 
the Lecompton convention to a vote of the people for 
ratification or rejection. 

" 5. The returns of the election held in said Terri- 
tory on the 4th of January, \^i'><, under the schedule 
of the Lecompton constitution, for Governor and 
other State oflicers, and for members of the Legisla- 
ture, specifying the names of each officer to whom a 
certificate of election has been accorded, and tl>e 
number of votes cast and counted for each candidate, 
and distinguisiiing between the votes returned with- 
in the time and in the mode [>rovided in said sched- 
ule and those returned subsequenti}- and in other 
modes, and stating whether at either of said elect- 
ions any returns or votes were rejected in conse- 
quence of not having been returned iu time, or to the 
right officer, or in proper form, or for any other cause, 
stating specifically for what cause. 

" r>. All correspondence between any of the Execu- 
tive Departments and Secretiry or Governor Denver 
relating to Kansas affairs, and which .has not been 
communicated to the Senate. 

"Resolved, That in the event all the information 
desired for the foregoing resolution is not now in the 
possession of the President, or of any of the Execu- 
tive Departments, he be respectfully requested to 
give the proper orders and take the necessarv steps 
to procure the same for the use of the Senate. 

The question being taken by yeas and nays, re- 
sulted— yeas 23, nays 30; as follows ; 



I YEAS — Messrs. Bell, Rroderick, Cameron, Chand- 
ler, Collamer, Dixon, DooUttle, Douglas, Durkee, 
Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Ilandin, Uarlan, King, 
Seward, Simmons, Stuart, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade 
and Wilson — M'i. 

NAYS— Messrs. Allen, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler. 

Bright, Brown, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Evans, Fitch, 

Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Hammond, llouston, Hun- 

I ter, Iverson, Johnson, of Tennessee, Jones, Ken- 

■ nedy, Mallory, JIason, Pearce, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, 

Slidell, Toombs, and Yulee — 00. 

So the motion to take up the resolutions was 
not agreed to. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. While these pro- 
ceedings have been going on, the hour has arrived 
for the consideration of an older special order, 
which was assigned at an earlier period, and which 
is now before the Senate. It is the motion of the 
Senator from Illinois to refer so much of the Pres- 
iden't annual message as relates to Kansas affairs 
to the Committee on Territories. 

Mr. DIXON. Do I understand the Chair to say 
that the special order is with regard to the refer- 
ence of the President's annual messagj? 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Yes sir. The Army 
bill was the special order for half past twelve o'- 
clock. When the hour of one o'clock arrived that 
special order falls, to give way to any other, which 
was assigned at another period, and takes prece- 
dence according to the order of time at which it 
was assigned, in conformity with the rules and the 
decision of the Senate the other day. 

Jlr. DAVIS. I move to postpone that ppcial 
order and all prior orders, so that we may proceed 
with the consideration of the Army bill. 

Mr. DIXON. The remarks I propose to submit 
can, as I understand, be as well made on the bill 
which the Senator from Mistissippi desires to bring 
to tiie attention of the Senate. I am perfectly 
willing to give way. 

Mr. BIGLKR. Will the Senator from Connec- 
ticut permit the vote to be taken on the motion ? 

Mr. DIX(lN. I give way. 

Mr. BIGLER. I simply suggest that we take a 
vote and proceed with the consideration of the 
Army bill, and then the Senator ha.s the floor. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The quenUon ia on 



^ 



the motion of the ScnrAtr from Mississippi to post- 
pone tlie special ordr.r indicated by tbe Chair, and 
all other special O'.ders before the Senate with 
a view to continue Vhe consideration of the Army 
biU. 

The motion was agreed to. 

INCHEASE OF THE AUMV. 

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, re- 
sumed the consideration of the (S. No. 79) to in- 
crease the I'lilitary establislinient of the United 
States, the pending question being on the motion 
of Mr. Toombs to strike out the first section of tlie 
bill. 

Mr. DIXON. It was my desire, Mr. President, 
yesterday to address tlie Senate on the general 
Bubject of the affairs of Kansas, then perhaps 
more properly before the body than now ; but such 
was my reluctance last evening, at the late hour 
when I might have obtained the tioor, to cliiini the 
attention of the Senate, that I relinquished my de- 
sign. I now propose to ask the indulgence of 
the Senate while I submit some remarks, briefly 
as may be, I trust, upon the question before the 
Senate at that time ; and I think, sir, that every- 
thing that might have been said yesterday, or at 
any previous stage of the debate, may as well be 
eai<i on this bill as upon any other subject which 
has been before us for consideration. The Presi- 
dent of the United States, in the message which 
was yesterday referred to the Committee on Ter- 
ritories, informed us, among other reasons why 
Kansas should be admitted as a State, that one, in 
his opinion, was, that if we so admitted her he 
could remove that portion of the Army of the 
United States which is now there; and I take it 
that we may infer from this that one very import- 
ant reason in the estimation of the Administra- 
tion for at this tima increasing the Army is, that 
the President thinks it his duty to employ a very 
large portion of the troops in that Territory. It 
is my opinion tliat there is no occasion at this 
time for retaining any portion of the Army of the 
United States in the Territory of Kansas for any 
purpose whatever ; at any rate for any such pur- 
pose as that for which it is now retained there. 
I desire to allude, in the course of my remarks, 
somewhat to the reasons given by the President 
of the United States for sending to and retain- 
ing in that Territory, the troops under his com- 
mand as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and 
Navy. 

We are in the midst of a very important con- 
troversy. I am sorry that it takes the character 
of a controversy ; but I desire to ask the Senate 
why it is that we are now engaged in a contro- 
versy of this kind, in regard to one of the Terri- 
tories of the United States? In the beginning of 
the year 1854, the law with regard to the state of 
every portion of the territory of this Union, and 
especially this portion of it, was fixed and settled. 
It was settled by a law which had existed for more 
than thirty years, and had been declared, by a 
very great authority on this floor, (Mr. Webster,) 
to be in his judgment irrepealable. He stated 
here, in 1850, that the condition of the territory 
of the United States, with regard to slavery, was 
fixed and settled by an irrepealable law. So far 
was he from supposing that the law of the 
United States which had for a long time fixed the 



chaiacter of the Territory in question, was nncon- 
stitutioiial, that he actually declared it to be irre- 
pealable. lie supposed it to be in the nature of a 
contract which could not be repealed. 

It was not, however, actually irrepealable ; it 
was repealed ; and we are told now, we were told 
by the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Too.mus,] the 
other day, in the course of Irs very remarkable and 
very able speech, that the legislation existing at 
that time in the Territory of Kansas, which was, 
by the act of 1851, declared inoperative and void, 
was the beginning of legislation and interference on 
the subject of slavery in the Territories of the 
United States. I have not quoted his exact lan- 
guage, but I think that was the idea suggested by 
the Senator. We have since been told, we were 
told yesterday, that the course of the non-slave- 
holding States and their Representatives on this 
floor, and in the other branch of Congress, had 
been aggressive. The charge has been made here 
and elsewhere throughout the country, that the 
people of the free States of this Union arc, in their 
feelings and in their legislation, aggressive on the 
subject of slavery, and that the aggression com- 
menced in the year 1820. If I understood the 
Senator from Georgia, his idea was, that then was 
the commencement of interference on the part of 
Congress. I deny, with all respect to the opinions 
of that gentleman, and other gentlemen who have 
spoken on the other side, that there has been any 
aggression on the part of the free States of this 
Union. I deny that that was the beginning of the 
interference of Congress ; and I take upon me here 
to say, and I shall show, by reference to acts of 
Congress and the whole course of the Government, 
that, from the very beginning of the Government, 
from its earliest inception, even before the estab- 
lishment of the Constitution of the United States, 
the policy was legislation on the subject of slavery, 
that full power was claimed on that subject, and 
that it was not until 1851 that the power of Con- 
gress was abnegated. Then it was that Congress, 
instead of exercising its power on that and all other 
subjects in the Territories, announced the doctrine 
that there was no such power in existence. If the 
doctrine was not then started, the action of Con- 
gress at that time was its first ollicial recognition. 

I do not propose to detain the Senate with a his- 
torical account of what took place in regard to the 
ordinance of 1787, known as it is to every Senator 
present; but I beg leave to refer very briefly to 
certain historical events which occurred previous 
to that time. That was not the beginning. Any 
one who will refer to the history of events con- 
nected with that period, will find that there waa 
not only no intention of extending slavery into the 
Territories of the Union on the part of the fathers 
of this Republic, but that there was actually no 
desire to extend territory. Not only did they not 
claim that slavery should be extended, but there 
was no wish, or desire, or intention, or supposition, 
that the territory of tliis Union could be extended 
in any direction. In the year 1787, the whole ter- 
ritory of the United States was covered by the ordi- 
nance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted and 
ratified by Congress among their first acts after the 
Constitution. Their first important act was to pasa 
a bill for the protection of American industry ; and 
almost their second act was to pass a bill ratifying 
and confirming the ordinance of 1787. This, I 



presume, is pretty much the order in which my 
honored friend from Rhode Island, who sits by my 
side, [Mr. Simmons,] would take up the subject if 
it were now referred to him. 

What took place before that time? The Con- 
gress of the Confederation, in their last moments, 
were employed in a manner somewhat instructive 
to us, in view of this subject. What were they 
occupied upon ? If you refer to the debates in the 
Congress of the Confederation, you will find that 
the subject before them was the question whethe." 
the exclusive right of the navigation of the Missis- 
sippi river, should be ceded to Spain. Seven States 
voted to relinquish to Spain the exclusive naviga- 
tion of the Mississippi river for twenty-five years. 
What States were in favor of that proposition ? 
Mr. Madison, in a letter to Mr. Jef!erson, written 
in the year 1787, states the course of each delega- 
tion, lie says : "Maryland and South Carolina have 
-^ hitherto been on the right side. Their future con- 
^i duct is somewhat problematical." — {^Fadison Pa- 
pers, volume 2, p. 642.) It was doubtful what 
positioa the States of South Carolina and Maryland 
would occupy on that all- important question. They 
»ji then had no idea of extending territory. So far 
>.'i from intending to extend slavery, they had no idea 
at that time that our territory would ever extend 
beyond the Mississippi river. They could not have 
had that supposition with the view they entertain- 
ed in regard to the small importance of the navi- 
gation of the Mississippi. We are told by Mr. 
Madison, that in the discussion of that question be- 
tween the Spanish Minister, (Mr. Guardoqui,) and 
our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Spanish Min- 
ister said that Spain occupied both sides of the 
Mississippi, as far as the mouth of the Ohio, inclu- 
ding Kentucky, and, 

" With an air of ostensible jocoseness, he hinted 
that the people of Kentucky would make good Span- 
ish subjects, and that the}' would become such for the 
sake of the piirilege annexed to that character." — 2 
Madison Papers, p. 592. 

Instead of excitement on the subject, two south- 
ern States — Maryland and South Carolina — were 
60 indifferent with regard to it that Mr. Madison 
eould not tell which way their votes would be re- 
corded. In the result the Constitution was adopt- 
ed, and the powers of the Congress of the Confed- 
eration, of course, departed, and no action was 
taken on the question. There was then no north- 
ern aggression. The proposition to prohibit slave- 
ry in the territory northwest of the Ohio river did 
not come from the North. It is now known to have 
originated with Mr. Jefferson himself. Northern 
people took very little interest in the question, 
compai atively. Southern statesmen, seeing that it 
would be better for that region of country that their 
institutions, about which they knew so much, 
should not be there extended, originated the pro- 
hibition in the Congress of the Confederation, and 
it was earned by their votes and by their influence. 
After the ordinance of 1787 was established, 
oar possessions were extended to the southwest- 
ern region of this country; the purchase of the 
Louisiana territory was made, with regard to a 
portion of which the controversy now going on is 
concerned. What do you see in the legislation of 
Congress, in reference to that Territory ? If you 
will refer to the very first act passed on that eub- 
Jiect — the act for the organization of Orleans Ter- 



ritory — you will see that instead of abdicating 
power on the question of slavery, Congress exert- 
ed full and supreme power on that subject. Any 
Senator who states that the commencement of leg- 
islation for the restriction of Slavery in the Terri- 
tories was in 1820, certainly either has not exam- 
ined this subject, or has not retained in his memory 
the result of that examination. I do not now pro- 
pose to dwell on that branch of th(' sulject. It 
has repeatedly been dwelt upon at sufhoient length 
in the Senate. It has been held up before the 
country. The Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Col- 
lamer,] in a speech of great ability, has laid be- 
fore the Senate all the facts in regard to that legis- 
lation. I barely desire to refer to it. You will 
find that in that act Congress exerted the power 
of abolishing a certain species of slavery which 
then existed in this countiy. Congress provided 
that slaves carried into that Territory for a certain 
purpose should be, immediately on being conveyed 
there, entitled to their freedom. Congress exerted 
the power of prohibiting the slave trade many 
years in that Territory before they had power to 
prohibit the foreign slave trade with the States of 
this Union. 

Not to dwell on that legislation which took place 
in the Territory of Orleans, what was done when 
the State ofLouisiana was admitted into the Union? 
We have been told repeatedly that Congress had 
no power to affix conditions to the admission of a 
State into the Union, except to provide that such 
State should be republican in the character of its 
government. If, however, you will refer to the 
act admitting Louisiana into the Union, you will 
find that not only was her government required to 
be republican in its character, but also a condition 
was annexed that the proceedings of all her courts 
and all her legislative proceedings, sliculJ be in 
the language in which the laws and proceedings of 
this Government were published, to wit : in the 
English language. That was one of the conditions 
insisted upon before the State of Louisiana could 
be admitted into the Union. Another condition waa 
that the navigation of the Mississippi should be 
free from any tolls which the State of Louisiana 
might claim at any time the right of imposing ; and 
furthermore that the public lands in that State 
should be ceded to the United States, and the right 
of the State to tax them relinquished. 

Such, at that time, waa the policy of the Gov- 
ernment. Was there to be found a statesman in 
this whole country, in Congress or out of Congress, 
who then claimed that tVe power did not exist to 
legislate on the subject of .slavery, as well as- all 
other subjects, in the territories of this country? 
I do not wish to exhaust the patience of the Senate 
by referring more minutely and particularly to au- 
thorities on the present occasion, but I beg leave 
to ask the attention of this body to what was said 
by Mr. Madison himself, at the first session of the 
Congress of the United States, under the Consti- 
tution formed by his aid and his counsel. A peti- 
tion was addressed to that Congress by Benjamin 
Franklin, asking that the traffic in human, being* 
might end. Some degree of excitement was occa- 
sioned by that petition ; but what did Mr. M«dis»a 
say? The power of Congress to legislate on the 
subject of slavery was then, for the first time, de- 
bated in either branch. It was admitted on all 
bands that there was no power to legislate with 



regard to slavery in the then existing States ; but 
bow was it as to tlie Territories? ilr. Madison 
said : 

" He admitted that Conpress is restricted by the 
Constitution from taking moasurcs to abohsh the 
slave trade; yi't llare arc a varit'ty of ways by wliitli 
it could eounlcniince the abolition, and regulations 
mifjht be made in rdution to the intnxhiclion of tliem 
into the new States to be formed out of the western 
territory. He thou;j;ht the object well worthy of con- 
sideration." — O'aliif & <">V<//<'/4'# ICiijiaUr of I'cbates, 
vol. 1, p. 12-iO. 

That covers the whole ground. He does not 
barely t^ay that Congress might legislate with re- 
gard to the Territories; he says regulations might 
be made with regard to the introduction of slaves 
into the new States to be formed out of the west- 
ern territory, showing his opinion to be not only 
that Congress could legislate in regard to the Ter- 
ritories, but could so legislate as to bind the States 
formed out of them after they became States of 
this Union. Down to the year 18'20, 1 have never 
been able to find, in any examination I have given 
the subject., that the power was doubted or denied; 
on the contrary, it was exercised on all occasions. 
Whenever the matter came before Congress, the 
power was exercised fully and completely. 

It is true that in providing for the government 
of the Territory ceded to the Union, south of the 
Ohio the prohibition of slavery was omitted. In 
the year 17V0 an act was passed applying the or 
dinaucc of 1787, to the Territory ceded by North 
Carolina, with the exception of that portion of the 
ordinance, prohibiting .slavery. Why was that 
exception made ? Was it because Congress doubt- 
ed the expediency of the prohibition ? Was it 
because the power of legislating on the subject of 
slavery was denied? It was for neither of these 
reasons — but because Xorth Carolina expressly 
provided in her deed of cession, that in the " re- 
ffulationx" made, or to be made for the govern 
nient of the Territory, slavery should not be pro- 
hibited — using the very word by which the grant 
of power to make rules and *^ regulations" for the 
government of the territories, was expressed in 
the Cjiistitution. It was for this reason, and for 
no other that Congress abstained from prohibit'ng 
slavery in all that Territory. North Carolina did 
not doubt that the power existed in Congress — 
nor did she doubt the disposition to exert that 
power, and therefore she provided in her deed of 
cession against its exercise. 

We then come to the year 1820. I suppose the 
restriction of slavery in the bill to admit Missouri 
into the Union is one of the in>tinees of northern 
aggression, upon which gentlemen would dwell in 
discussing this matter. I need not remind the 
Senate ol the manner in which that (luesiion was 
brought bi'forc the country; but I desire at this 
time to call attention to the peculiar mode in which 
that compromise was carried through both this 
aud the other House of Congress Was it done 
by northern men? Was it considered as a gain by 
northern men ? I have been at some little pains 
to look into the manner in which that bill was 
brought before Congress and passed, and I tind no 
record of any advocacy of the measure, except by 
southern men. The principal advocate of it seem- 
ed to be Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina. Mr. 
Claj, of course, was an advocate of it, but he oc- 



cupied the Chair a large portion of the time, and 
what he said is not reported in the current re- 
ports. Mr. Lowndes was one of the warmest and 
strongest advocates of that compromise, and when 
the vote was finally taken, and the measure passed 
Congress, it appears that all the members present 
from the States of Maryland, Virginia, North Caro- 
lina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennes- 
see, Louisiana, Missis.sippi, and Alabama, voted in 
flivor of the compromise. It was passed by their 
influence aud their exertions. Their arguments sus- 
tained it. The North opposed it. It is true the 
North claimed more; it is true that most of the 
non-slaveliolding States of the I'nion claimed that 
slavery should not be permitted in any territory of 
the United States, nor in Missouri, but the restric- 
tion of slavery in the territory north of thirty-six 
degrees thirty minutes, was advocated and sustain- 
ed by southern men, and carried by southern votes. 

The act for the admission of .Missouri, with the 
restriction of slavery north of thirty-six degrees 
thirty seconds, was signed by President Monroe, 
after consultation with his Cabinet. The subject 
of the constitutional power of Congress wa3 then 
fully discussed. Mr. Calhoun was then Secretary 
of War, and the proof is conclusive that he con- 
curred with John (,)uiney Adams and the other 
members of President Monroe's Cabinet, in the 
opinion that the power o*" Congress to restrict 
slavery in the Territories was comjdote. Among 
Mr. Monroe's manuscripts has been found a paper 
indorsed: "Interrogatories, Misjouri, March 4, 
18'io. To the heads of Departments and Attorney 
General." 

Questions, " Has Congress a right, under the 
powers vested in it by the Constitution, to make a 
regulation prohibiting slavery in a Territory? 

" Is the eighth section, which pas.«cd both Ilonses 
on the 3d, for the admission of Jlissouri into the 
Union, consistent with the Constitution?" 

The following original draft of a letter was found 
in Mr. Monroe's handwriting, not addressed to any 
one, but supposed to be intended for General 
Jackson: 

"Df.ar Sin: The question which lately agitated 
Congress aud the public has been settled, as you have 
seen, by the passage of an act for the admission of 
Missouri as a State unrestricted, and Arkansas like- 
wise, when it reaches maturity, and theestabli.'^hment 
of the thirty-six degrees thirty seconds north latitude 
as a line north of which slavery is prohibited and per- 
mitted to the south. I took the opinion in writing of 
the Administration as to tlie constitutionality' of re- 
straining Territories, (and the vote of every member 
was unanimous,) aud which was explicit in favor of it, 
and as it was, that the eighth section of the act was 
applicable to Territories only, and not to States, when 
they should be admitted into the Union. On this 
latter point I had at first, some doubt ; but the opin- 
ion of others, whofe oi)inions were entitled to weight 
with me, supported by the sense in wliich it was 
viewed by all who voted on the sulyect in Congress, 
as will ajipearbv the Journals, satisUcd me respecting 
it." 

The line included in parenthesis is erased in the 
original — not because the fact of unanimity d!d 
not exist, for it is not conceivable that Mr. Monrte 
should have deliberately recorded the fact if so 
important a member as Mr. Caliioun had express- 
ed a dissenting opinion, but probably because Mr. 
.Monroe did not think it proper, on reflection, to 
state how individuals voted. He therefore variea 



the form of expression, and Pays the opinion of the 
administration was explicit in favor of the consti- 
tutionality of tlie restriction. 

But if any doubt can exist as to the opinions of 
the entire Cabinet, including Mr. Calhoun, it is 
set at rest by a contemporaneous record, which 
cannot be impeached, and which imports absolute 
verity. I ask the attention of the Senate to the 
following extracts from the unpublished diary of 
Mr. John Quincy Adams, who was then Secretary 
of State. 

"March 3, 1820.— When I came this day to my of- 
fice, I found there a note requesting me to call at oue 
o'clock at the President's House. It was theu one, 
and I immediately went over. lie expected that the 
two bills, fur the admission of Maine and to enable 
Missouri to make a constitution, would have been 
brought to hull for his signature ; and he had sum- 
moned all the members of the Administration, to ask 
their opinions, in writing, to be deposited in the De- 
partment of State, upon two questions: 1. Whether 
Congress had a constitutional right to prohibit 
slavery in a Territory: and. 2. Whether the eighth 
section of the Missouri bill (which interdicts sla- 
very forever in the territory north of thirty-six 
desrees thirty minutes latitude) was applicable 
only to the territorial state, or would extend to it af- 
ter it should become a State. As to the first question, 
it was unanimously agreed thit Congress had the 
power to prohibit slavery in the Territories. [Mr. 
A. thought it extended to the State, which it was 
bound by — others that it only related to the Terri- 
tory.] 

"March 5. — The President sent me yesterday the 
two questions, in writing, upon which he desired to 
have answers in writing, to be deposited in the De- 
partment of State. He wrote me that it would 
be in time if he should have the answers to-morrow. 
The first question is, in general terms, as it was 
stated at the meefing on Friday. The second was 
modified to an inquiry whether the eighth section of 
the Missouri bill is consistent with the Constitution. 
To this I can, without hesitation, answer by a simple 
affirmative ; and so, after some little reflection, I con- 
clude to answer both. 

" March <>. — I took to the President my answers 
to his two constitutional questions, and he desired 
me to have them deposited in the Department, to- 
gether with those of the other members of the Ad- 
ministration. They only differed as they assigned 
their reasons for thinking the eighth section of the 
Missouri bill consistent with the Constitution, be- 
cause they considered it as only applying to the ter- 
ritorial term, and I barely gave my opinion, without 
assigning for it any explanatory reason. The Presi- 
dent signed the Missouri bill this morning. 

"A true copv from the originy), by rae, 

"CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS." 

With this legislation the country rested in 
peace for many years. Its constitutionality was 
yaubsequently affirmed in at least one important in- 
stance, namely : in the establishment of the Ter- 
ritorial government of Oregon. In the act for that 
purpose, slavery or involuntarily servitude except 
for crime, was prohibited. It had ih« support of 
Southern men, and the act was approved by 
President Polk, to whom the idea that the restric- 
tion was unconstitutional did not present itself as 
wortliy of regard. 

In the year 1854, the country was at rest — the 
compromise measures of 1850 had been adopted, 
and had been for the most part acquiesced in. 
There were many, to be sure, in some parts of 
the country, who were opposed to those meas- 
ures; but the opposition had nearly subsided: 



there waa a general acquiescence. If the subject 
had been allowed to slumber there, I think the ac- 
quiescence would have continued, and would have 
increased. But, in an evil hour, in the year 1854, 
the law which had existed for more than thirty 
ye.irs — the constitutionality of which had been ad- 
mitted on all sides ; which had scarcely been de- 
nied, or, if it had been denied, had been denied in 
a manner which showed that there was no very 
great sincerity in those who were denying it — the 
restrictive portion of the act was c'eclarcd inoper- 
ative and void ; and, in addition to that, a feature 
was presented in the bill which it was supposed 
would render it quite aeceptable to the people of 
the free States. What was that feature ? Having 
stricken out, and declared inoperative and void, 
the clause prohibiting slavery north of thirty-six 
degrees thirty minutes, the bill pi'ovided that the 
question of slavery in the Territory included in it 
should be left to the free action of the people of 
the Territory. They were to be left " perfectly 
free to form and regulate their domestic institu- 
tions in their own way." That waa the only feat- 
ure of this bill which, so far as its supporters in 
the Northern States were concerned, was consid- 
ered in any degree acceptable. To a portion of 
the people of this country that feature was accept- 
able. It was that feature of the bill which sus- 
tained the party now in power in the last presi- 
dential election. Mr. Buchanan is ri*Tat, in his 
message, when he says the subject was presented 
to the people of the Northern States of the Union 
in this light : that the people of the Territory of 
Kansas should be permitted to vote on the ques- 
tion of slavery freely ; that it was to be submitted 
to them ; that their will was to be not only con- 
sidered, but respected and regarded as final. 

That bill having become a law, what was the 
action of the people of this country respecting it, 
considering them sectionally, viewing them as oc- 
cupying diifereiit portions of th-j Union? What 
did the northern States ? I will consider their con- 
duct in the light of the charges brought against 
them. They are accused of having colonized Kan- 
sas Territory. We are told that people from the 
northei-n States of the Union, being desirous, if 
possible, to retain that Territory as free territory, 
believing, as they did, that it belonged to Freedom 
by every title, not only by the legislation which 
had long been acquiesced in, but by the law of na- 
ture, that it was a proper climate for free territory, 
emigrated to that region in large numbers ; we are 
told that emigrant aid societies were established ; 
we are told that free settlers were encoui'aged and 
aided by incorpoiated companies to go into that 
Territory, and there take up their residence. If 
it wet e so, I am not able to say that I see in that 
anything objectionable; certainly there was noth- 
ing illegal. What if it were true that northern 
States did incorporate companies vith a view of 
settling one of the Territories of the Union; is not 
that a perfectly proper and perfectly legal course ? 
Is not settling a Territory a laudable object? 

Wc are told in the message of the President of 
the United States, in regard to Central America, 
that the proper way of obtaining that territory 
which does not belong to us, is by etnigration ; 
that we ought not by force of arms to attempt to 
seize Central America ; but that we ought to do it 
by peaceful emigration. If it is i ight to emigrate 



into a territory which does not belong to u?, is it 
not perfectly proper, is it not a laudable object, to 
encourape emigration into a Territory bt-loiiging to 
this Union V That is all that any Senator can ?iiy 
has been done, even admitting every charge witii 
regard to the Kniicrant Aid Society. It was a 
laudable object; it was a desirable object; and if 
there was the further object of carrying liberty into 
that Territory, it certainly does not render it less 
laudable or less desirable. 

But what are the facts? In point of fact, the 
settlement of that Territory by means of the Emi- 
grant Aid Society, which has been considered a 
very great act of aggres.-iion on the part of the 
North, has been much overstated. I believe the 
fact to be that only a very small portion of the free 
settlers of Kansas Territory went (roni the New 
England States at all; it is not true that they all 
went from the New England States, it is not true 
that they went there under the auspices of tlie Emi- 
grant Aid Society. For one, I can say that in my 
entire acquaintance, I have scarcely known more 
than a single emigrant who has gone into that Ter- 
ritory from the State of Connecticut. The Sena- 
tor from Iowa [Mr. IIaui.an] informed us the other 
day, that (I think) four-tifihs, at any rate a very 
large proportion of the settlers of the Territory 
have gone from the northwestern States, and they 
have not gone under the auspices of the Emigrant 
Aid Societjf They iiad a perfect right to do so. 
The States of this I'nion had a right to pass acts 
of incorporation (or any legal purpose, (ind if citi- 
zens had gone under those acts of incorporation, 
there would liave been no pos.^ible objection which 
could have been made to it by any Senator with 
any show of reason ; but in point of fact it was not 
80. The settlers went, as we should have suppo- 
sed they would go, from the adjoining States, from 
adjacent terriiory; or a large proportion of them, 
almo.-^t the whole of them, did to. 

That having been the course of the free States, 
what, I beg leave to ask, was the course of ihe 
States that are called the slaveholding States, or 
the slave States — I prefer to call them the slave- 
holding States. Did they attempt to settle that 
Territory? Did they make any attempt to settle 
it by peaceful emigi-ationV If tlie State of South 
Carolirra, or the State of Virginia, had seen lit to 
incorporate companies, with the view of settling 
Kansas, with the view of encouraging their own 
people to go there and settle that Territory with an 
honest intention of residing there, there would 
have been no complaint raised by the portion of 
the Union from wlrich I come. Their right was 
perfect : they could have done it. 1 never heard 
that they did; but what did they attempt to do? 
I do not say that any of the States of this Union 
as such, interfered iir any impioper nrauner in the 
fettling of that Territory ; but I do say that the 
proof is perfectly rrndeniable — I irndertake to allege 
that it is proved by the report of the investigating 
committee of tlie other House of Congr-ess — that 
the people ot the adjacent State of Missouri inst'jad 
of attempting to settle Kansas, instead of going 
ther-e as actual rcsiderrts with the intention of re- 
jnairring, werrt there by force arrd took possession 
of the ballot-box at the point of the bayorret. It 
was not fraud in the irrci;plion ; they did not begin 
iby fraud ; tlrey adopted no such peaceful nrearis 
AS fraud impliea. They went there by actual force 



and violence, and drove the free settlers of that 
Territory from the polls, and took possession of the 
government. 

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Green] the 
other day, denied these charges ; and he charged 
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] with 
having stated what he could not prove. I say it 
is proved. It is so far proved that any Senator baa 
a right to allege it on this floor ; he has a right to 
say it is substantiated by evidence. It is shown 
that, of the voters who took part in the first elec- 
tion, on the Siith of ilarch, 185.'), in tire Territory 
of Kansas, abovrt five thousand, in round numbers, 
were persons who had no residence in the Terri- 
tory, who had no inlerrtion, so far as appears, of 
becoming residents, who were there merely for the 
occasion of voting; and when their business of vot- 
ing was firrishcd, they returned to their homes in 
an adjoining Slate. They established a government; 
they gave it the form of law ; they elected a Legis- 
lature. That Legislature was irot elected by the 
people of the Territory, but by the people of an 
adjoining State — men who exercised the right of 
sulfrage in their own State — men who had exhaust- 
ed their right of suftVage in their own State ; men 
who, having voted in their State, had no right to 
vote anywhere else. They irrvaded this Territory, 
and without stopping at fraud, by actual violence 
took possession of the polls, and drove away those 
who had a right to vote at that election. That is 
the origirr of the "legality" of the acts that have 
since taken place in Karrsas. 

We ar-e told by the ricsiderrt of the United 
States that the form of law has been given to this 
action; and we are told that the Legislature has 
been r-ecogrrized by both branches of Congress; we 
are told that he hirnseU' has recognized it. That 
is the very tiling of which we complain. The very 
cause of corrrplainton the part of the people of the 
Xorthern States (>f this Union, and, I trust, a por- 
tion of the Southern States, is, that this gross and 
oirtrageous and too successful attenij)t to subvert 
the liberties of the people of that Territory, to de- 
prive them of their rights, has been upheld and 
recognized by this Government. Can it be claimed 
here ; will it be claimed that fraud, and violence 
can be ratified, can be confirmed, can have any 
sanction given them by any subsequent indirect 
approbation, such as it is claimed has been given 
them by the other House of Congress ? It seems 
to me that no Senator can claim that any such 
technical support can be given to these proceed- 
ings. 

We come, in the progress of event:', to the pres- 
idential election. SV'hiie these troubles were ex- 
citing the attention and interest of the people of 
the country, the last presidential election took 
place ; and what was the issue then made before 
the people ? I carinot say what was the issue 
made in the Southern States ; but I can say with 
Safety that the issue made in the Northern States 
of the Union by the friends of Mr. Buchanan was 
wheth'.'r the people of the Territory of Kansas 
should be allowed to settle the question of slavery 
for themselves. It any other ([uestion had been 
presented by them to the people of that portion of 
t re country, I am safe in saying that the re- 
sult woirld have been very differerrt. The Pres- 
iderrt tells you that everywhere this question was 
made by his supporters — not the question of 



the extension of slavery into Kansas ; not, shall 
Kansas be a slave State ; but shall the people of 
Kansas at the polls in a legal manner, in a proper 
manner, be permitted to say whether they will have 
slavery or not ? That, he says, was the question 
submitted in the presidential election, and the re- 
sult is known to us all. The people of this coun- 
try decided it. I am willing to admit that the de- 
cision was then made, so far as you can draw an 
inference in regard to their decision from the re- 
sult of the presidential election. They decided 
that, in their judgment, it was right and just that 
the people of the Territory of Kansas should be 
allowed to decide on their own institutions in their 
own way. 

When the President of the United States took 
his place as Chief Magistrate of this Union, a very 
large portion of the people of the Northern States 
and of my own constituents had great confidence 
in his patriotism. They had a strong iiope that 
there would then be a fair opportunity furnished 
for the people of the Territory of Kansas to decide 
on their own institutions. They knew very well 
that if that decision was made in accordance with 
the actual views of the people of the Territory, it 
would be in favor of the views entertained by us 
on the great subject of slavery. They had entire 
confidence as to what the decision would be, and 
they had great confidence in the patriotism and 
the honesty of the President of the United States. 
He had assured them that the people of the Ter- 
ritory should be permitted to decide the question 
in their own way. He has stated, in his annual 
mesisage, that if the question had not been pre- 
sented to the people in the manner I have sug- 
gested, the result would not have been what it 
was ; or, at any rate, he has said that it was so left, 
and that such was the understanding everywhere. 
Well, sir, has that been done ? Has the confidence 
reposed in the President of the United States by 
the people of this country been repaid? Let us 
see. 

Sir, in the cour?e of the last summer, when it 
was first publicly announced that the President of 
the United States had deemed it his duty to use 
the Army to enforce the pretended laws of the 
Territory of Kansas, or more correctly speaking, 
to compel the free State settlers of that Territory, 
they being a large majority of the actual popula- 
tion, to submit to the government of a small mi- 
nority, a number of my constituents united in a 
memorial to the President, which was expressed 
in the following language : 

"iZw Excellency JAMES BUCHANAN, 

President of the United States: 

" The undersigned, citizens of the United States, 
and electors of the State of Connecticut, respectfully , 
offer to your Excellency this their memorial : 

" TheYundaniental principles of the Constitution of 
the United States and of our political institutions is, 
that the people shall make their own laws and elect 
their own rulers. 

" We see with grief, if not with astonishment, that 
Governor Walker, of Kansas, openly represents and 
proclaims that the President of the United States is 
employing througii him an army, one purpose of 
whichis 10 force the people of Kansas to obey laws 
not their own, nor of the United Suites, but laws 
which it is notorious, and established upon evidence, 
they never made, and rulers they never elected. 

"We represent, therefore, that by the foregoing 



your Excellency is openly held and proclaimed, to 
the great derogation of our national character, as vio- 
lating in its most essential particular the solemn oath 
which the President has taken to support the Consti- 
tution of this Union. 

" We call the attention further to the fact that your 
Kxcellency is, in like manner, held up to this nation, 
to all mankind, and to all posterity, in the attitude of 
' levying war against [a portion of] the United States,' 
by employing arms m Kansas to uphold a bod}- of 
men, and a code of enactments purporting to be ' 
gislative, but which never had the election, nor sanc^, 
tion, nor consent of the people of the Territory. '\^ 

" We earnestly represent to vour Excellency that ' /N^ 
we also have taken the oath to obey the Constitution ; \ 

and your Excellenc}' may be assured that we shall not 
refrain from the prayer that Almighty God will make 
your administration an example of justice and be- 
neficence, and with His terrible majesty protect our 
people and our Constitution." 

This memorial was signed by forty-three gen- 
tlemen, citizens of the State of Connecticut. They 
made no publication of the paper ; but in good 
faith they sent it to the President for his own pri 
vate perusal, with the hope that it would exert on 
his mind such influence as it might deserve .to 
have. No man can say that the memorial is not 
couched in respectful language. The President ■ 
himself took no objection to it in this respect ; for • 
he made an exception to his general rule in rela- 
tion to papers addressed to himself, and gave it a 
particular reply. This reply was made through 
the channel of the newspaper press, and thus was 
first announced to the public the existence of the 
memorial itself. It was not by the memorialists 
obtruded upon the public attention. The Presi- 
dent, himself, apparently desirous of an opportu- 
nity to publish his intentions regarding Kansas, 
seized this as a fitting occasion of making them 
known. I make no complaint of this, nor do I 
complain of the tone of the reply. It was like the 
memorial itseW, respectful in manner and style, 
and thecharacter of the memorialists perhaps just- 
ified the unusual course taken in giving it pub- 
licity. 

The memorial, and the reply of the President, . 
were deemed by him of so much importance, that 
he enclosed both to Governor Walker, then in 
Kansas, and thus they became a part of the pub- 
lic correspondence on the subject of the affairs of 
the Territory, and being included in the docu- 
ments accompanying the special message, commu- 
nicating that correspondence, arc printed there- 
V. ith, and are thus legitimately before the Senate. 

Now, sir, I invite the attention of the Senate to 
this correspondence between my constituents and 
the President, in several points of view. I have 
brought the history of the affairs of Kansas down 
to tfie period when this correspondence took place. 
I have shown the character of the act repealing 
the Missouri restriction, and I have referred to the 
series of outrages consequent thereon. I have 
referred to the presidential election of 1856, and 
to the hopes kindled in many honest and confiding 
hearts that James Jfuchanan would take high pa- 
triotic ground on the subject of that unfortunate 
Territory. Then, at this precise time to which I 
have alluded, came the correspondence of which 
I am speaking. 

The main object of the memorial was to protest 
against the use of the Army of the United States 
in enforcing the execution of the pretended lawa 



8 



of Kansas. To that I will first direct my atten- 
tion. They first lay down the acknowledged prin- 
ciple that the people should make their own laws 
and elect their own rulers. Then they say that 
Governor Walker openly represents and claims 
that the President of the United States is employ- 
ing through him an army, one purpose of which 
is to force the people of Kansas to obey laws not 
their own, nor of the United Stales ; but laws 
which it is notorious and eslablislicd upon evi- 
dence they never made and rulers they never 
elected, they then allege that by the foregoing 
the President is held up and proclaimed as viola- 
ting his oath of office. They do not charge him 
with such violation of his oath ; but they say that 
to use the Army of the United States to force the 
people of Kansas to obey laws which they never 
made and rulers they never elected, would be such 
a violation ; and they say further that the Presi- 
dent is represented and proclaimed by his agent. 
Governor Walker, as employing through him an 
army for that purpose. 

Tills memorial always seemed to me timely and 
proper ; but whatever may have been thought of 
it by others at the time of its publication, it has 
Eince, by the progress of events, been fully vindi- 
cated, and the wisdom and justice of its appeal 
have been fully established. The President of the 
United States had no legal right to use the Army 
in the manner and for the purpose indicated in 
the memorial, and acknowledged by him in his re- 
ply. This I new propose to attempt to prove. 

The memorialists declare that the laws of Kan- 
sas, which the President was enforcing by the 
bayonets of the regular Army, were not laws; that 
they had never the election, nor sanction, nor 
consent of the people of the Territory ; and that 
they were not laws of the United States. What 
is the President's reply to this? I take now his 
own allegation with regard to it. Does he say 
that the laws in question were really enacted by 
competent legislative authority? Does he say 
that the rulers, claiming authority which he was 
sustaining by Federal bayonets, were actually 
chosen by the people of Kansas? He says no 
Fuch thing. He barely alleges that the Territory 
had been organized, and that its government was 
in operation. " A Governor," he sa_\ s, " Secreta- 
ry of the Territory, chief justice, two associate 
justices, a marshal, and a district attorney, had 
been appointed by his predecessor, by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate, and were 
all engaged in performing their respective duties." 
Who denies this? Who disputes the authority of 
these officers ? Their powers were not in question. 
The President well knew, when he dwelt on this 
long array of officers of the Territory, appointed 
by his predecessor, that the'r powers were undis- 
puted, that they were unresisted in the execution 
of their duties, and that they were not now the 
subject of complaint. Why, then, dwell on this 
fist of officers, except to divert attention from the 
true (juestion ; which was, are the laws of Kansas 
the enactments of the representatives of the peo- 
ple, and are their elected rulers the officers cho- 
sen by them ? But he goes on : 

" A code of laws had been enacted by the Territo- 
rial Legislature. It is quite true a controversy had 
previou.sly arisen rcspecimg the vuiiditv of the elec- 
tiun of nanibers of the Territorial Legislature, and 



of the laws passed by them ; but at the time I enter- 
ed upon my olficial duty, Congress had recognized 
this IjCgishiture by different enactments. The Dele- 
gate elected to the Uonse of Representatives, under 
u territorial law, had just completed his term of ser- 
vice on the day previous to my inauguration. In 
fact, I found the government of Kansas as well es- 
tablished as that of any other Territory. Under 
these circumstances, what was my duty? Was it 
not to sustain this government, tojirotect it from the 
violence of lawless men, who were determined to 
rule or ruin V to jirevent it from being overturned by 
force; in the language of the Constitution, 'to take 
care that the laws be faithfully executed?' It was 
for this purpose, and this alone, that I ordered a 
military force to Kansas to act as jjossc comitattts in 
aiding the civil magistrate to carry the laws into ex- 
ecution." 

The President asserts that it is his duty to en- 
force the enactment of the so-called Legislature 
of the Territory. I have already considered the 
question whether those acts were entitled to be 
considered true legislative acts or not. My own 
opinion is that they were not. I think it has been 
shown conclusively that there was no form of le- 
gislation connected with them which gave them 
any authority or should entitle them to any re- 
spect. While I do not admit that they were acts 
of legislation, I undertake to say that even if they 
had been acts of a Legislature properly and legal- 
ly chosen, the President of the United States, un- 
der the Constitution and under the law, had no 
legal right to send the Army of the United States 
into the Territory of Kansas for the purpose wh'ch 
he has himself acknowledged and avowed. For 
what purpose had he a right to send the army into 
that Territory ? The Constitution of the United 
States gives to Congress certain powers with re- 
gard to the military force of the country. 

First, it gives to Congress certain specified 
powers with regard to the militia in these words: 
viz., "The Congress shall have power to provide 
for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of 
the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel inva- 
sion." This is the extent of the power of Congress 
on this subject. Founded on that clause of the 
Constitution is the act passed in the year iT'Jo. 
In passing that act. Congress followed, almost 
verbatim^ the language of this clause of the Con- 
stitution. It has sometimes been questioned why 
larger powers were not given by that act of Con- 
gress; and one gentleman, I think the Senator 
from Ohio, [Mr. Pugii,] spoke the other day of a 
casus 07niss}is in this act, meaning that the case 
of a Territory in which the services of the militia 
might be needed to uphold the law, was omitted 
by accident, aud not by design. But, sir, the 
reason why no power was given to the President 
in the act I am about to quote, to call for the 
militia, when Territorial laws were obstructed, 
was that Congress had, by the Constitution, no 
power to delegate to him that authority. Con- 
gress had only power to provide for the calling 
forth the militia to execute the Inicsof the Unioriy 
suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. When 
Congress had passed a law authorizing the militia 
to be called out for that purpose, their power was 
exhausted. The framers of that l)iil passed it with 
the Constitution before them. They gave the 
President all the power which the Constitution 
invested in them. They arithorized him to call out 
the militia for certain purposes, and Congress had 



9 



no power to authorize him to call out the militia 
for any other purposes. To show that the act of 
1795 goes no further than I have stated, let me 
read three sections to the Senate: 

"Section 1. Beit enacted ly the Senate and ITmcse 
cf Bepres-ntatlves of the United States of America in 
Go-ngi-ess msemUfd^ That whenever the United States 
shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of inva- 
sion from r.ny foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall 
be lawful for the President of the United States to call 
forth such number of the militia of the State, or 
States, most convenient to the place of danger, or 
scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel 
such invasion, and to issue his orders for that pur- 
pose^ to such ollicer or officers of the militia, as he 
shall think proper. And in case of an insurrection 
in any State, against the government thereof, it shall 
be lawful for the President of the United States, on 
application of the Legislature of such State, or of the 
Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be con- 
vened,) to call forth such number of the militia of 
any ether State, or States, as may be applied for, as 
he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection. 

"Sec. 2. And. he it further enacted, That whenever 
the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the 
exccotion thereof obstructed, in any State, by combi- 
nations t o powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary 
course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested 
in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the 
President of the United States to call forth the militia 
of such State, or of any other State or States, as may 
be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to 
cause the laws to be duly executed ; and the use of 
tlie militia so to be called forth may be continued, if 
necessary, until the expiration of "thirty days after 
tlie commencement of the then next session of Con- 
gress. 

" Sec. 3. Provided always, and heitftirther enacted, 
That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment 
at the President, to use the military force hereby di- 
rected to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, 
by proclamation, command such insurgents to dis- 
perse, and return peaceably to their respective abodes, 
within a limited time." 

Compare this act and the clause of the Constitu- 
tion which I have cited, and you will find that there 
is no omitted case. By it the President was era- 
powered to usi the militia for every purpose, for 
•which Congress had power under the Constitution 
to provide for its being called out. 

I think there are very few, if any, Senators here, 
who would claim that under that act, if there had 
been no further legislation, the President of the 
United States would have been authorized to call 
out the militia of any State of the Union unless for 
tlie purposes specified in that act. He would have 
power, having thus been authorized by Congress, 
to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the 
Unim, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion — 
how? The mode in which he was to do that was 
P])ecified in the act. In the first place, after hav- 
ing been called on by the Governor or Legislature 
of a State, he was to issue his proclamation as 
President of the United States, stating the reasons 
why he had resorted to this measure. Then, after 
having ordered the militia into any State, the law 
expressly provides that he should retain them there 
for no longer than the space of thirty days after 
the next meeting of Congress. So jealous were 
tlie framers of that act of the powers of the Exec- 
utive, that even in the instance therein specified, 
the President was only permitted to use the militia 
for the space of thirty days, and after all the pre- 



requisites mentioned in the act had been complied 
with. 

Then, in the year 1807, another act was passed, 
under which the President of the United States 
claims the power to employ the troops of the Uni- 
ted States, as he is at this time employing them, 
in Kansas Territory, and as he tells us he will retain 
them, until we admit Kansas as a State. What is 
that act? My constituents saw fit to expostulate 
with the President of the United States for using 
the Army for the purpose, as they supposed, of 
crushing the liberties of the people of Kansas. 
Now, what authority had the President to use tlie 
Army there at all? The act of 1807 simply pco- 
vides: 

"That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction 
to the laws, either of the United States or of any in- 
dividual State or Territory, where it is lawful for the 
President of the United States to call forth the militia 
for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or 
of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be 
lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, 
such part of the land or naval forces of the United 
States as shall be judged necessary ; having first ob- 
served all the prerequisites of the law in that pes- 
pect." 

Mark the language. In cases where it was law- 
ful to call out the militia under the first act, it was 
declared lawful for the President, for the same 
purposes, to employ the land or naval forces. 
When was it lawful to call out the militia by tho 
act of 1795 ? In these three cases, viz : 

1. In case of invasion or imminent danger of in- 
vasion. 

2. In case of insurrection in any State. 

3. In case of opposition to or obstruction of the 
laws of the United States in any State. 

Heie, then, is no authority to employ the mili- 
tia, even when the laws of the Union are resisted, 
except in a State. Now, sir, if we refer to the 
second act— that of 1807 — we find the regular 
Army could only be used, when the previous law 
authorized the President to call out the militia. 
It did not give such authority for the purpose of 
executing territorial laws. 

There is not a word said in the Constitution, or 
the law which was drafted in compliance with it^ 
in regard to a Territory ; but in the second act the 
word " Territory" is used, and it may possibly be 
claimed by some that, by implication, the Presi- 
dent has power to use the regular Army in a Ter- 
ritory. I do not admit that such a power as this 
can be granted to the President by implication ; I 
say an express act of Congress must be shown to 
authorize the President to use troops in that man- 
ner ; but if any Senator is of opinion that implica- 
tion is sufficient on which to found this authority, 
I take it the imphcation must follow the general 
grant itself If the President gets the power by 
the use of the word " Territory," he must comply 
with all the prerequisites of the former act, and if 
by analogy his po^^er in any State is to be carried 
into a Territory, because of the mere use of the 
word Territory, by way of recital, in the act of 
1807, then he is to act in a Territory precisely as he 
would in a State. If he has power to order troops 
into a Territory, he has power to order them as he 
would in a State, and in no other wise. If he has 
any power at all, under this law, as to a Territory, 
he has it precisely as he has it in regard to a State; 



M ^ li l Ml 



itftorfM^" 



10 



and he is bound to comply with all the requisites, 
prereqiiisitfs, and po?tref|uisites, in rcj^ard to his 
employment of the troops re^iuired in any State of 
this Union. His power is manifestly no greater in 
a Territory, where he takes it by implication than 
iu a StJite, where he takes it by express grant 

That, I think, mnst be admitted by every Sena- 
tor who claims that tliere is this power by impli- 
cation. If there is a grant, it is a grant confined 
to the powers tlie President had in a State. Now 
what could he do in a State ? In certiiin cases he 
might use the militia in a particular manner ; but 
he could retain them there only for the period of 
thirty days afrer the next meeting of Congress. 
There was the limit of his power ; and he may use 
the regular Army in the same manner, iiaving com- 
plied wiili all the prerequij-ites. I do not claim 
Uiat the Presidont of the United States has not a 
right to station or quarter troops in Kansas. That 
is not the qne^tion. The question is whether he 
has the right to order the troops of the United 
States into the Teiritory of Kansas for the pur- 
pose which he has himself avowed. What is that 
purpose? The act of Congress authorizes him to 
ii.«e the Army in crtain cases for the purpose of 
executing the laws of the Union; for the purpose 
of suppressing insurrection ; for the purpose of re- 
pelling invasion. But what has he done ? lie 
tells us — he tolls the gentlemen of Connecticut 
who wrote to him on the subject — that he has or- 
dered troops into Kansas, not for the purpose of 
repelling invasion, not for the purpose of suppress- 
ing insurrection, not for the purpose of executing 
tlie laws of the Union, but for the purpose of pro- 
tecting the polls " as a posse comilatus" as a meas- 
ure of " precaution," he says. Did the Congress 
of the United States intend to give to the Presi- 
dent precautionary powers in regard to the pres- 
ervation of the peace al the polls by the use of the 
regular Army ? lias he a right to'judge for him- 
self as to when there is a probability that the laws 
may be violated ? And if he sees reason to sup- 
pose that at any time the laws may be violated, or 
au election precinct disturbed, has" he a right, as a 
precautionary measure, without complying with 
any of the prerequisites mentioned in the statute, 
without waiting for a rccjuisition from the (iov- 
ernor, or for a call from anybody, to send the Army 
into any State or Territory to guard the polls ? 

The Senator from Georgia told )is the other day, 
in rather striking language, that liberty preserved 
by regular troops is not worth preserving. I am 
rather inclined to think thitthe freedom 'of elec- 
tions in the States of this Union, preserved by 
regular troops sent by the President of the United 
States as a measure of precaution, is scarcely worth 
preserving. What has he done? We have be- 
fore us, (it was laid on our tables this morning, 
and I then saw it for the first time,) a document 
containing some particulars with regard to the 
manner in which tliat posse comitahis was em- 
ployed by General Harnev, who, eminent as I 
know him to be in his ndlitary capacity, is not 
precisely the man I should desire to pres'ide over 
the polls, with "batteries of artillery," and any 
number of "companies of foot artillery," to aid 
him in the decision of difticult questions. It seems 
that ou the ."id of October, 1857, the foUowing 
Older was sent to Captain Uendricksou : 



HEADQrARTEns Troops serving in Kansas, 

FoitT Leavenwortu, OcUtbtr 3, lb67. 

Captain: By special Drdors No. 85, from these 
headquarters, of this date, you are instructed to pro- 
ceed, in c<jinmand of companies A and II, 0th infan- 
try, to the town of Kickupoo, to be in time for tlie 
opening of the polls at the ensuing clecdon in that 
jdace, on the o\\\ instant. 

You are further instnicttd by the general com- 
manding to report your force, upon your arrival at 
Kickapoo, to the proper civil autliorities, to act as a 
;-</.v.v^ c'im'ttutwi in the execution of such orders as may 
he deemed proper to give you in that capacity. 

Before leaving this post you will report to his ex- 
cellency the Governor for certain inslri-ctions he is 
desirous of giving to yon concerning the above civil 
duties. After the election is over, you will return 
with j'our command to this post, unless detained by 
the proper civil authorities for a longer jjcriod. 

I am, captain, very respectfullv, vour obedient ser- 
vant, A. pl1:asonton, 

Captain, 2d I>rafio(ms, A. Ass. AJJutani OeneroL 
Captain Tuomas ILendrickson, 

(jth Infantry, Fort Liaxemcorih, K. T. 

Mr. BEXJAMIX. Where is that to be found ? 

Mr. DIXON. On page 128 of the second vol- 
ume of the message and accompanying documents 
for 1857-8. I deny that the President of the 
United States had any right to send a body of the 
regular force of this country to Kickapoo, or any 
other place, as a precautionary measure for tlie 
purpose of protecting the polls. I will not now 
allude to what took place at Kickapoo. There 
were three hundred voters in that small town, and 
they gave one thousand votes under the auspices 
of the regular troops of the United States. The 
polls were pretty thorougidy protected on that 
occasion. But, not to allude to that, admitting 
that everything there was fair and honest, nobody 
claims that there was any outbreak; nobody claims 
that there was any danger of an outbreak. It was 
a place where the free-State men had no strength; 
it was a place where the vote was almost wholly 
on tlie other side. But, to drop that point, and 
not to dwell upon it at all, I say the President of 
the United States had no power under the Consti- 
tution, or under the law, as a precautionary meas- 
ure, to send troops to that point for the purpose 
of guarding the polls. Gene-al Ilarney, in a letter 
to Mr. Floyd, Secretary of War, says: 

"Ueadqitarters Troops serving in Kansas, 

"Fort Leavenworth. Octohir 11, lb57. 

" Sir : I have the honor to report, for the informa- 
tion of the Department, that the general eltction in 
this Territory, which took ])liice on the ."ith r.nd 6th 
instant, has passed oil' very ijuietly, no disturbance 
or tumult having occurred at any of the polls which 
have been heard from to mar the peace ot the Terri- 
tory. 

" The troops have returned from the different elec- 
tion ]>recincts, with the exception ot Sherman's bat- 
tery of artillery and one company of foot artillery, 
and these companies have been retained iu the vicin- 
ity of Lawrence, at the request of his excellency the 
Governor of the Territory. 

What a picture does that present ! An election 
carried on under the auspices, under the guard 
and protection of the troops of the United States, 
sent out by the President of the United States as 
a mere measure of " precaution !" There was no 
disturbance, peace was preserved, " order reigned 
in Warsaw;" and why should it not? You had 
the whole force of the Army of the United States, 
and the President tells the New Uaven gentlemen, 



11 



who protested against his course, that the whole 
power of the Government should be used for the 
purpose for which he has used it in that Territory. 
What was the opinion of the late President of the 
United States with regard to the power of the Ex- 
ecutive on this subject? I will not say that I 
quote it as an authority which ought to govern on 
all subjects ; but I do say it is an authority which 
ought to have binding force on the present Presi- 
dent of the United States, and on Senators on the 
other side of the House, and especially with the 
Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. Davis) who was a 
member of the Cabinet at the time. This subject 
was discussed by General Pierce, in his message 
presented at the commencement of the third ses- 
sion of the Thirty-Third Congress ; and he said 
then: 

" The President of the United States has not pow- 
er to interpose in elections, to see to their freedom, 
to canvass their votes, or to pass upon their legality, 
iu the Territories any more than in the States. If he 
had such power, the Government might be republi- 
can in form, but it would be a monarchy in fact ; and 
if he had undertaken to exercise it in the case of 
Kansas, he would have been justly subject to the 
charge of usurpation, and of violation of the dearest 
rights of the people of the United States." 

I adopt that language. I think it is correct. I 
think the President had no power to use the Army 
for that purpose; and I believe that his act in ex- 
ercising that power was, in the language of Presi- 
dent Pierce, a usurpation. 

Believing that no power existed on the part of 
the President of the United States to send troops 
into Kansas, to be employed in the manner avow- 
ed by him, a portion of my constituents, as I 
have already stated, addressed the memorial, of 
which I have spoken, to that officer. Mr. Presi- 
dent, who are the men who have thus memorial- 
ized the Chief Magistrate ? They have been stig- 
matized as if guilty of some outrageous enormity. 
The Government organ, in this city, if I am not 
mistaken, has joined in the denunciations of a par- 
tisan press. It has used language with regard to 
thcHi which it might well have left to its more un- 
scrupulous companions, and which I do not wish 
to quote in this presence. Even the Governor of 
Virginia, in a letter to his political friends in Tam- 
many Ilall, has joined in the cry. I know not how 
many epithets of derision, from various quarters, 
have been applied to the gentlemen who have 
signed the memorial of which I speak. 

Among other things they have been denounced 
as political clergymen. Well, sir, suppose it 
were true that they were all clergyman. I under- 
take to say that the clergy of this country stand 
where they ought to stand; first and foremost in 
intelligence, in education, in morality, in sincere 
piety. A purer clergy cannot be found in Chris 
tendom. They wear their sacerdotal robes un- 
spotted. They mingle in no mere political strife. 
Tney lead the people by their counsels and by their 
example in the paths of that religion whose doc- 
trines they preach, whose precepts they practice, 
and whose Iprofession they adorn. This, sir, 
whatever may be said of a few individuals who 
have proved unworthy, you and I know, and every 
Senator here knows to be true from our own ob- 
servation of their lives. Are not such men emi- 
nently entitled to the privilege of memorializing 
the President of the United States on a subject 



which they believe touches the immortal destiny 
of man, and takes hold on eternity? I was shock- 
ed when I saw these men insulted and vilified by 
the organs of the Government, and I rejoiced when 
it ajipeared that the President himself authorized 
and justified no such indignity, but gave their me- 
morial a respectful reply. 

But, sir, allow me to say that, in point of fact, 
only a small proportion of the whole number of 
these forty-three memorialists are clergymen. The 
rest are eminent civilians and men of science. As 
a body, they are not inferior in position, in talents, 
in influence, in learning, to any equal number of 
men who may be found in any State in this Union. 
Such are the signers of this memorial. The dis- 
tinguished man whose name has been placed at 
the head of the list, and first addressed in the Pre- 
sident's reply, sought no such honor; but I admit 
he is entitled to the distinction. Connecticut con- 
sents to accept him as her representative man, and 
the President was only right in taking his name 
from its too humble place on the list, and placing 
it before those who would gladly yield him prece- 
dence. And now, sir, who is Benjamin Silhman, 
that he should be assailed by name in the Govern- 
ment organs, as if he were not entitled to address 
a respectful message of expostulation, or, if there 
were need, of reproof, to the President of the Uni- 
ted States ? One of the great lights of modern 
science — known, celebrated, distinguished among 
the few who have adorned the arts, and shed new 
light on the studies most cultivated by civilized 
man; the peer, the friend of Iliimboklt, of Davy, 
(while he yet lived,) of Arago, of Agassiz, of Chev- 
reul, of Cotta, of De La Beche, of Jean Baptist Du- 
mas, of Faraday, of Le Verrier, of Brogniart, of 
every great contemporary name made illustrious 
by devotion to science — known all over the world, 
where many of our distinguished countrymen are 
still unknown ; the instructor of three generations 
of young men, in that far-famed university beneath 
whose classic shades he is passing his last days ; 
the guide, the philosopher, the friend, whose teach- 
ings and whose counsels have been er joyed by mose 
of our public meu than those of any man now liv- 
ing; the honored professor, at whose feet your own 
Calhoun sat for many years, when he, a young man, 
went to New England, as the young men of Rome 
went to Greece to learn philosophy. There, sir, 
under the inslructionsof Silliman, and Dwight, and 
Kingsley, his great intellect was cultivated, adorn- 
ed, and strengthened. There he learned to wield 
that invincible logic which enabled him success- 
fully to encounter the giants of other days — the 
Websters, the Clays, the Bentons — in this Senate, 
with constant victory; or, if not with victory, with- 
out ever hifving been compelled to acknowledge 
defeat. I know not, sir, how many members of this 
body were trained by the same men or their suc- 
cessors. But this with deference I say, that 
whatever honors may be in store for any mem- 
ber of this body; whatever just claims to un- 
dying fame the tdents, the acquirements, the elo- 
quence, the public services, of the most distin- 
guished here may give him ; there is not one among 
these honored Senators who may not deem him- 
self satisfied, all the hopes of his youth more than 
fulfilled, all the labors of his manhood more than 
rewarded, if he may finally reach the measure of 
fame enjoyed in his ripened years by Benjamin 



14 



government — not nt the north or the south only, | countrv will threaten to dissolve the Union If we 
but throughout tin? N'alion. Every froomaii, what | propose to abide by it?" 

ever his Huutinuiit', whatever hi.s iiiterest.s in re- Sir, would any man at that t'mc have dared to 
lation to tlie (juotion t>f wlavery, and wherever h\s \ say anything of that port ? Would it not have been 



residence, may forget and escape from the narrow 
prejudiees of Ijirth and education, and take such 
part 03 a generous nature should prompt in this 
great cdntest in defense of the rights of humanity. 

When we view it in this light, a d say that we 
cannot consent to the admission of Kansas into 
this Union, under the constitution adopted at Le- 
couipton, because the people of that Territory 
have not been permitted to express their opinion 
on that con-titution, because it is wholly in viola 



considered insulting to tlie 8outh ? to Mr. Lown- 
des, to Mr. Clay, to all those distinguished men 
who forced this compromise on us, if they had 
been told that if it were insisted on by the North, 
their descendants would make that a cause of dis- 
solving the Union? I have no very great fear of 
the Union ijeing dissolved at any time. I see no 
reason why our friends on the other side of the 
House shoidd attempt to dissolve it. You have it 
all, as it is. I see not how you could very well 



tion of their wisla-s, b'ec'ause iheir lights and ! ^^^c a more complete southern confederacy than 



privileges have not only l^een neglectjd, but havt 
been forcibly ami fraudulently trampled in the 
dust, wo are told by the President of the United j 
States that we must make no such objection, be- 1 
cause dark clouds hover over the Union. What | 
does that nieiin? I would not allude to it here, j 



you now have. 1 do not object to your enjoyment 
of the emoluments and privileges of power and 
place. Connecticut has never objected to any- 
thing of that sort. Connecticut has never been 
very anxious to assert her rights and interests on 
this floor. She has been willin£r, as a patriotic 



if the President of the United States had not done "'^"''^'^'" ""[ ^'"'^ "^"o"' "^ ^° her duty to perform 
so. I do not wi.h to suu.d here, occupving my r^-" P"";'; >>"t f'e has never claimed any very 
position as one of the Senators on this floor, as a K--^' '^'■^''^ of the honors or spoils of onicc. She 
defender of the Union. I wish to take it for ^°°*' " P'"'^">' '^''^'V' P"^' '" " ^o^T"'^"'''^,'^'^"'- 
granted that the Union of these States is to con- '^''^ ^yas active m the Revolution ^i ou could not 
Unue; but the President intimates that it depends ! have had your independence without her, and she 
npon the result of the vote on this question of I m^^c your Government. Mr. Calhoun stattnl in a 
admitting Kan-ius. Yet I see no blame attached ! "Pf"'^^ ""J" ''"«, A"?: ^^'*V° Connecticut, to Oliver 
bv him to those who propose to destroy the fabric J;'"s^;:o'th, and to Roger bhcrman were tiie thanks 
of this Government, unless Kansas shall be admit- ^"'''/o'" <!'^^ Government we now have and to tliem 
ted, under this coiibtitulion, into the Union of ! '"'f-''' "^'^^ ^^'- J 'itcrson. of .New Jersey. Wc 
theac Slates ' *■" "" '^^"^'-^ P^^rt then ; but since that time we 

j have been perfectly willing to live in the Union 
Suppose a portion of the people were to be ad- j simply as a patiiotic member, 
dressed, as we familiarly say, "from the stump," | Our people are a Union-loving people. They 
a portion Rf the people of the State of this Union j would sacrifice everything but honor and princi- 
which is most ultra, if any such there be, in de- pie to save the Union ; but when they arc told 
feiise of the institution of slavery, and an orator that their brethren of the South demand of them 
in addressing them, were to say, " My friends, the , that they should relinquish an agreement and coiu- 
Uniou between the States forming this Govern- j pact made over thirty years ago on this subject, or 
ment, is to be dissolved ; and why? In the year that the Union must come to an end, thev have 
1820, we made a compact, an agreement, we con- : nothing to say on the subject. I think they de- 
sented, our representatives themselves brought ' sire their representatives here to vote as they think 
forward the proposition, we made a solemn cove- duty onght to prompt and dictate, without paying 
nant and agreement that north of thirty-six de- ; any regard to intimations of that kind. Certainly 
grec^ thirty minutes, slavery should be forever ] I intend to do so. I intend to follow nobody's 
prohibited. \ow, my friends, it is proposed on lead here. Something has been said in regard to 
tlie part of our northern bretheru to do as they leaders, and how certtin leading Senators intend 
agreed to do. Ihey propose to carry out that | to vote. I intend, as one, to vote in accordance, 
compact; they have carried it out for thirty-six | as I understand them, with the views of my con- 
years; ihcy propose to continue it ; we have had j stitucnts, in connection with, and most] willingly 
all ou our side of the line; they propose to take j under the lead of, my colleague, [Mr. Foster,] 
their side of the line ; and now, gentlemen, we | and under the lead of nobody else. Other Sena- 
are about to di.-solve this Union, because our tors may speak and act for themseves. 1 propose 



to speak and act for myself 

lUit, Sir, I can see no reason why the President 
should imagine that .=o dark a cloud now hangs 
over us. Suppo.se we should not at this time ad- 
mit Kansas with the Uecompton constitution ; and 
suppose, upon the whole, it should be thought 



brethren will do as they have agreed." That is 

the whole of it. The people of the North are now 

told — I regret that any such threat should be held 

out even by implcation, that the President of the 

United Slates should make the iniimation — " if 

you insist on what you ami we consented and 

agreed to, thirty years ago, the Union is to 1)0 dis- j best to a<lopt the resolutions which were offered 

solved." What would Henry Clay have said, what by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douolas,] the 

woald William Lowndes have said, what would j consideration of which has been voted down at 

Mr. Calhoun have said ? What would these gen- ' this time, and make further inquiry— suppo.-<e tha 

tlemcn have s.iid, if they had been told by Mr. Senate of the Uniu-d States should conclude, on 

Taylor, of New York, who opposed the coiupro- the whole, that it is best to investigate this sub- 

aiise, " we will not make this agreement ; because, ject, to a.scertain whether all the charges of fraud 

if wo do make the agreement, in less than half a | and violence are founded in truth or not ; is it not 

century representatives from your portion of the ' too trivial a cause for a dia.'olution of the Union? 



15 



It seems tome almost puerile, that the President of 
the United States should come before us, and tell 
us that on this question hangs the permanency of 
oar institutions. It cannot be, sir. Our institu- 
tions do not hang on any such feeble chain as 
tiat. They hang on another chain. They hang 
on the golden chain of mutual advantage. That 
is the chain on which they are suspended — the 
mutual advantage of the different sections of this 
country. That I believe will forever sustain the 
Union. 

But, sir, we are told that a pledge has been 
given, and pledges are not to be violated. A 
pledge, it seems, was made in 1854, and the peo- 
ple of the northern States of the Union are now 
violating a pledge! They are aggressive, and 
they are violating pledges! Why, sir, the Union 
newspaper, this morning, if I may allude to the 
passing events of the day, spoke of a pledge made 
in the year ISS-t by the people of the United States 
with regard to the question of slavery. I wish to 
take this occasion to say, that instead of making 
a pledge at that time not to violate the legisla- 
tion of 1854, there was a general protest. Your 
old parties were broken up ; it destroyed the ves- 
tiges, the fragments of the old parties, with the 
exception of the Democratic party ; and I think 
that is pretty thoroughly demoralized by this time. 
Instead of making a pledge for that purpose, there 
was another pledge made. There was ,a determ- 
ination expressed that the territory included within 
the compromise of 1S20, which had then been 
ceded to freedom, which belonged to freedom by 
every title, human and divine, should never, with 
the consent of the people of the North, be con- 
verted into slave territory, It was free then ; it 
had been declared free by the acts of southern 
men ; their leading statesmen had acquiesced in 
this disposition of the territory ; it originated with 
them ; Mr. Calhoun had acquiesced in it ; Mr. 
Monroe and his whole Cabinet had acquiesced in 
it. The people of the North said we will never 
consent that that territory shall be made slave ter- 
ritory so long as we can prevent it. They did not 
say that they would dissolve the Union if it was 



done. I have never heard any threats of that 
kind. I do not understand that they now pro- 
pose to do so. That argument they leave to 
others. 

They do not ask you now to restore the compro- 
mise of l!}20. That of course is now out of the 
question. They ask a practical recognition of it. 
But they are not only not permitted to go that 
length, but tliey are not permitted to go so far as 
to claim that the people of the Territory of Kan- 
sas shall settle the question for themselves. A 
large portion of the people think that Congress 
never ought to admit Kansas asa slave State under 
any possible circumstances ; but the course of 
events has changed the aspects of the question. It 
is not now a question of that kind ; but it is, as I 
have already indicated, a question as to whether 
the people of the Territory shall be permitted to 
decide for themselves what their State govern- 
ment shall be. I scarcely know of any difference 
of opinion in the North on that point. 

If this is persisted in ; if it is insisted upon that 
the people of that Territory shall not be permitted 
to express their opinions, my belief is that there 
will be a unanimity on this subject at the North, 
such as ha3 never been witnessed on any question 
before. It is not now merely a question of sla- 
very ; it is not so considered. There are hundreds 
and thousands who never have taken much inter- 
est in the question of slavery, who do feel an in- 
terest in the question whether the people of the 
Territory of Kansas shall be permitted to say for 
themselves whether slavery shall exist there. They 
see here a determination to force on that people a 
constitution which they not only never have adopt- 
ed, but which they have rejected ; and they 1)6- 
lieve that ought to be resisted to the end, and if 
need be to the bitter end, however bitter that may 
be. 

But, sir, I have no desire to occupy the atten- 
tion of the Senate further on the subject. I have 
already trespassed longer than I intended, and with 
my thanks to the Senate for their attention I will 
now close. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 

! IP mri ill III 



016 085 220 3 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 
1858. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



015 085 220 3 



n 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

BUELL & BL AN CHARD, PRINTERS. 
1858. 



